In Brief
A property owner filed a suit for possession after a long-term lease expired, seeking only vacant possession without claiming damages. In a subsequent suit filed during the pendency of the first, the owner claimed damages for the tenant's unauthorised occupation from 1998 onwards. The tenant challenged the second suit's maintainability under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Supreme Court held that suits for possession and damages for use and occupation constitute separate causes of action with distinct considerations, making the second suit maintainable. While defendants may challenge specific time-barred portions, they cannot reject the entire claim as unmaintainable.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.